Adm. Case No. 2131. May 10, 1985.* ADRIANO E. DACANAY, complainant, vs.

BAKER & MCKENZIE and JUAN G. COLLAS, JR., LUIS MA. GUERRERO, VICENTE A. TORRES, RAFAEL E. EVANGELISTA, JR., ROMEO L. SALONGA, JOSE R. SANDEJAS, LUCAS M. NUNAG, J. CLARO TESORO, NATIVIDAD B. KWAN and JOSE A. CURAMMENG, JR., respondents. Attorneys; Use by Philippine lawyers of the firm name of an American law firm is unethical.We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partner ship organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & McKenzie. Same; Same.As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a _______________ * EN BANC. 350 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie representation that being associated with the firm they could render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment (p. 3, respondents memo). This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here. ADMINISTRATIVE CASE in the Supreme Court. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Adriano E. Dacanay for and in his own behalf. Madrid, Cacho, Angeles, Dominguez & Pecson Law Office for respondents. AQUINO, J.:

Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in 1954, in his 1980 verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G. Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practising law under the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. In a letter dated November 16, 1979 respondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie and if not, what is your purpose in using the letterhead of another law office. Not having received any reply, he filed the instant complaint. We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie. 351 VOL. 136, MAY 10, 1985 351 Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment (p. 3, respondents memo). This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here. (See Ruben E. Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1983 Ed., p. 115.) WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Acting C.J.), Makasiar, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevas and Alampay, JJ., concur. Fernando, C.J., on official leave.

Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave. Plana, J., no part. Respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie. Notes.Double role of an attorney is not regarded as unduly prejudicial to the other accused. (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1.) An attorney client relationship can be created by implied agreement, as when the attorney actually rendered legal services for a person who is a close friend. The obligation of such a person to pay attorneys fees is based on the law of contracts/concept of facio des (I do and you give). (Corpus vs. Court of Appeals, 98 SCRA 424.) [Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie, 136 SCRA 349(1985)]